Martin Schulz calls for a United States of Europe

The former leader of Germany’s SPD (Labour party) and possible candidate for Chancellor of Germany has called for a federal Europe and the exit from the EU of any country refusing to ratify the Union treaty needed.

Perhaps those Remain advocates who said there was no such plan may like to comment, given similar ideas from the President of France.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

The report published 22 June 2015, yes indeed I read it before the referendum in May or June 2016.
And do you know by the way that Sir John is requoting things which have been in the public domain since Dec’17, before Schulz resigned from/(was basically pushed out of) his position in Feb’18. Why does Sir John do that, now in Aug’19, if not for pleasing/titillating this audience.

Heffy: yes it is well known that Martin Schulz made these comments when he was the former Leader of the SPD point being -some years ago – but as far as anyone knows neither he nor anyone else of a ‘similar’ persuasion has retracted / changed their thinking on this including the President of France a far more important player than the former which is probably why Sir John ends his entry with the latter. As for making Chancellor -Billy Boy – who knows- but he (Schulz that is) is a possible contender and by the way get a grip Billy there is no ‘t’ in Shulz so endeavour to get that right before launching off into who knows more about German domestic politics. Dot the I s and cross out the T s so that we have a better understanding of what you know and wot yer don’t know.

I can’t recall a single one of the ‘cabal 100 000’ being either named let alone interviewed by members of the public. Do you know a single person that is part of this ‘cabal’? I don’t. Neither do I recall a single one of them being elected by the people to have such powers.

Margaret Howard, Boris Johnson was elected by his constituency electorate, as are all Prime Ministers. He has promised to enact the Conservative party manifesto commitment to leave the EU on which the Tory party was elected as the majority party. You and the rest of us can remove him from office after 5 years, or less. None of that democratic accountability is on offer from the EU. None.

Modern Party Leaders are elected by their membership, the candidates may (or may not) participate in public or internal debates, and they are interviewed by the media, but I am not aware of any election in which the electors themselves are obliged to be interviewed or named, as you appear to suggest.

And I reiterate that your use of the term ‘cabal’ in this scenario is laughable.

It is a reasonable point. Martin Schulz is a prominent politician in Germany and represents a significant strand of opinion. Mrs von Der Layen has also said she thinks the EU should be a federal entity, like Germany, the US or Switzerland.

I listened to Frau von der Leyen in the EU parliament the other day and she is quite clearly a woolly-minded and starry eyed advocate of a new Communist bloc in Europe – as Gorbachev pointed out years ago. She is much more dangerous than Schultz and Juncker because she is superficially so much more attractive in her persona and her manner.

Farage observed there and then that this was communism in the making. You can imagine how that went down. He was not the only dissenter there, and the result was she got a majority of 7. Not how the EU usually gets its confirmatory business conducted.

Martin Schultz left the direction of the SPD in February 2018, he was replaced by Andrea Nahles, the SPD lost rather heavily in the last European elections. Do you really think that all these events make him a top contender for the next Chancellor of Germany?
I would rather think that Sir John commenting about 1/ a German, 2/ a “socialist”, 3/ a federalist was a very nice way to hook his readers. I left to the readers of this blog to decide whether such a behavior falls under incitement or prostitution.

A comment as ridiculous as it is rude hefner.
Either you accept what the stated ambitions of the EU are for the future or you keep denying where the EU is heading.
Why keep denying it?
Are you in favour of it or not?

Five Presidents Report: your introducing that in your response to my comment is the red herring you are so keen on condemning in others’ comments. That had nothing to do with Bill Brown’s original point and my comment supporting him.
And while I don’t agree with the FPR for the UK (anyway the UK leaves on 31/10, so why bother), it might be what the EU27 are aiming for. After all it has been in the EU stated policies since Maastricht and even in one form or another since 1957.

It isn’t a red herring at all.
But it is good to see you acknowledge the future aim of the current leadership of the EU and this potential candidate.
It doesn’t really make much difference whether this particular person gets power because all the Commission and the Presidents and most future candidates are in favour pressing on with expansion, with federalism and creating the United States of Europe.

Hefner, You say that the ‘United States of Europe’ is the stated policy of the EU now, but your first comment endorsed Bill Brown’s view that the threat of a USE should not be taken seriously. So which is it – not serious, or a fact?

NickC, Bill’s comment was about Schulz’s limited chance to ever becoming German Chancellor, so I supported it. If you and Ed2 cannot take a joke about the entertainment potential of Sir John’s comments, I can only conclude that you are (as PotUS would say) a “sad, very sad” bunch.

Not sad at all Hefner.
Just keen on a bit of accuracy, as the comments from pro EU fans are about denying the ambitions of the EU leadership and future hopefuls, to drive the project forward to a federal United States of Europe.
First we were said to be mad and wrong when the ambition for an EU armed force was denied but now that has been accepted.
Now the USE federal plan is being denied because one German candidate has little chance of electoral success.
If you are pro EU why are you so frightened to promote the clearly stated future ambitions of the organisation you love?

…..Herr Schulz may not be a meaningful contender in the eyes of non German MSM and commentators, but with the current distain for Frau Ursula von der Leyen (Merkel) anything is possible….a week in politics, as they say ….is very much alive and kicking in Germany too?

Remainers tell us that the UK has no power within the EU. According to them, the UK only has employment protection laws because the EU forces it to. So when we leave we gain importance as the UK is an independent country again instead of merely obeying the EU.

You keep repeating this post almost word for word Margaret.
Yet it is completely wrong
1. The Union is not breaking up.
Polls show no majority for independence in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
The SNP are less popular today than they were a few years ago.
2 Again you fail to mention Wales which voted the leave the EU
3 England, if left as an independent nation would still be one of the world’s biggest economies.
4 Try researching the GDP of Lichtenstein versus England before you post this nonsense again and make yourself look foolish.

Graham ASH: Yes we did. Amongst other things, a specific opt out (another one) from “ever closer union”. Our soon to be lost membership was in itself a “cake and eat it” one, with tailored membership and lots of opt outs (Schengen, the Euro etc.). Something we will never get back

Sir John has mischievously posted something said by a failed opposition party leader in 2017 framing it as new news to provoke a reaction and must be delighted with the response.

Reply Not so. Thus is a live debate now in the EU. Your thoughts on President Macrons stance please

My thought on President Macron’s stance is that when the UK is inside the EU, we can discuss, debate and influence things, and if necessary veto stances we don’t like. Whereas outside the EU, we will stand watching, utterly powerless and totally ignored. As James Vero correctly says, we have our cake and we can eat it right now – in the single market, outside the Euro and Schengen and able to veto tax harmonisation, defence cooperation etc (if we want to veto it). It’s bananas to surrender that in favour of sulking on the fringes

Your “being at the heart of Europe” argument has been said for decades Henry yet being one voice and often the only opposing voice has failed.
The EU has just carried on with its plan.
And with QMV added to increased areas of no veto if we stay in we would have even less influence.
They will be happier without us as a member.

Henry Carter, You are ducking and weaving, failing to answer JR. The issue is the emerging United States of Europe and the evidence for it, including Macron’s support. We do not need to be in the EU to comment on that. So answer the question. If you can.

But in fact we are still in the EU. I haven’t noticed any UK influence, still less control, over what Macron says, have you? I do not know a single major EU policy we have stopped, and we wouldn’t be able to stop the USE even if we remained in.

Then again, once we have really left the EU, how it organises its internal affairs no longer matters so much to us. So we don’t need mere influence when we’re out, because we regain the power to control our own policies directly.

The notion we had the best of both worlds is a lie, pure and simple, because the EU continually acquires increasing powers to itself. For example the Bolkestein directive gives the Commission a veto power over local government rules on services. That is just one EU “feature” no-one ever got to vote for.

The simple truth is that Remainers wish the EU to govern every single aspect of our lives, economy, health, trade, law and defence because that is what the EU exists for and works towards unstintingly.

Unlikely the BBC will give it any prominence. BBC reporters are at least 98% pro remainer and with much religious zeal. It comes out in nearly every question the interviewers ask on the subject. On Climate alarmism they are more like 99.9% believers and do seem never to even allow any climate realists on.

Politicians and the BBC think types keep pretending that the Derbyshire dam problem is due to climate change and heavy rain. They clearly have zero understanding or logic, science or engineering. Either a dam is sound enough to hold back a full reservoir of water or it is not.

What is the best way to stop say 500-1000+ people being killed by a major dam breach?

Is it:-
a. Make sure the dams are structurally sound and well maintained so as to hold back a full reservoir of water and with suitable overflow when full with a very good safely margin or:-
b. Spend billions on subsidies for wind farm, solar PV, electric cars and importing bio fuels to burn at Drax. Saving no significant CO2 at whatsoever in worldwide terms and pray?

Most politicians, charities, bureaucrats and the green crap dopes at the BBC seem to think the latter! Oh for some more sensible engineers, physicists and fewer such dangerous, lefty, scientifically illiterate dopes.

There are roughly 25 federal countries in the world today, which together represent 40 per cent of the world’s population. They include some of the largest and most complex democracies – India, the US, Brazil, Germany and Mexico. Their system of government, while it can be complex, has made many federations amongst the most prosperous countries in the world with high standards of government services.

The Remaniacs want a federal Europe and see the UK as an integral part which is needed to fund the project and bail out the Euro when it hits the buffers. They are determined to sacrifice UK sovereignty and economic independence to achieve this goal and they will do all they can to prevent the UK from leaving the EU.

Donald Trump’s administration is warning Britain that it will not get a free trade deal unless a new tax affecting US tech giants is dropped, The Telegraph can reveal. Again I say, did someone mention the UK being a vassal state of the EU? Perhaps they meant the US?

Reply Nonsense. If this is true its an opening bid in a negotiation where we can say No.

Concerning the ”story” in the DT and this ”new tax” – did you see who wrote it? Someone called Ben Riley-Smith. Looks like a nice lad. He studied ”journalism” at yooni, and his own profile says:
”I’m a reporter at The Herald writing on all things news. In the past, I’ve investigated disability hate crime for The Guardian, penned obituaries for The Telegraph and filed from No 10 for the Press Association. I’m particularly interested in stories about politics and media. ”
He’s obviously really well-qualified to speak on something so important for the US and UK, isn’t he?

Isn’t the point of the tax that it is being made directly at the point of sale? Therefore, if the goods are sold in the US at a profit, the tax is paid in the US on that profit. The tax paid where the company is registered in on overall profit which, no doubt, have the tax already paid at the point of sale deducted as a cost.

Sales taxes already exist in America and that is a simple small percentage add on to the sale price which consumers pay.
In America it is split between a State sales tax and a Federal sales tax.
Some want such companies to pay an additional tax on the overall profits they make in each country they trade in as well as the profit tax they currently pay in their HQ nation.

Does he really mean to eject any country that rejects the idea of a federal EU. Am I correct in assuming that Ireland will have to hold a referendum? What about Germany? We really do live in interesting times.

Seeing a bunch of countries leave the EU for refusing to ratify their treaty would be a laugh. EU consisting of Germany, France (maybe Spain) and some Eastern European states with their hand out would be a fitting outcome for that failed project.

If you’re going to have a federal Europe, it needs to elect its President and other individuals who can propose legislation.

Perhaps the only way to get to that is to see this European project fail first.

“Am I correct in assuming that Ireland will have to hold a referendum?”

Fixed, like the two they had for adoption of Euro ?

An interesting scenario indeed !

Imagine – the former independent state of Ireland eventually realises they have no national identity, and it dawns on them that they are no more than subjects of a foreign oppressive power…..what then ?

I suppose grovelling to Gt Britain who freed herself from such vassalage. Thing is; we’ll be well out of it and we’ll not have forgotten the insults directed at us from Dublin.

Moral here = conspire against and and insult our country……don’t expect any help from us in the future.

steve- am sure a EU Federal State will not happen all at once- I was reading that it will start with core states first and then be followed by others when they’re ready. Regarding defence- Ireland has a very small army of about 8000 regulars only so won’t be first to join anything- although I did hear they have some of their well trained Ranger unit out there in Chad fighting alongside a German contingent. Anyway as regards insults coming from Dublin I don’t know what you can mean or what news you are looking at- because I don’t see it myself except occasionally in the ‘Express’- probably some jingoistic stuff to sell newspapers

Schulz is yesterday,s man and irrelevant, so your post simply betrays your ignorance and paranoia. Imagine a German quoting Kate Hoey and claming she is setting out the future of the UK’s political agenda – that is the equivalent of you citing Schulz.
Reply Not so, Schulz was leader as recently as last year and has an important role going forward

He supports a United States of Europe and so do you Andy.
Don’t be a denier.
The EU has a stated ambition to be the United States of Europe.
Those in the positions of real power in the EU are all federalists.

Uh ? But he’s simply stating the facts – the Eu is committed to “ever closer union” isn’t it ? So initiatives like the EU Army that you Remainers lied to us about are inevitable. I’m not suggesting we put you in jail for those lies though – see how merciful we are compared to you ?

I’m warming to the French government a bit though since they said their response to global climate change emergency disruption warming would be determined by science experts rather than poor little Greta – we have little to learn from the young if she’s anything to go by.

At the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin 21/11/2018 :
“Sovereign nation states must not listen to the will of their citizens when it comes to questions of immigration, borders, or even sovereignty.”

At the re-signing of the Franco/German Treaty of Aachen 22/01/2019 for military co-operation :

“As a bulwark against the rising forces of populism and nationalism that are threatening to tip Europe into an era of chaos.”

[So the EU army is not to protect the EU nations from outside dangers but to control the people of the EU]

It is in retrospect a pity that mr Major didn’t veto the Maastricht treaty rather than just obtain the opt outs (which he did successfully). Had that happened the EC as was would have continued and could have been the basis of trade and other cooperation, and all the new federalist stuff like the euro and the ECJ Supreme Court could have applied to those countries which wanted it, in a parallel EU.

Likewise more recently Brown should not have reneged on his promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, although by then the federalist die was cast.

Trying to make up for his party’s poor election results?
I don’t care how any MSM tries to explain this away …we all knew that the ideology of a federal Europe was buzzing around in the background.
So now it is out in the open.
Brexit…quick!

As predicted by many… This was always going to be the endgame, but with oppressive politicians like Schultz leading the charge, the EU will never be anything that is good for the individual, but will be pretty close to what the old USSR was…
Isn’t it amazing though how impatience is almost certain to bring down the EU. If the 3rd rate politicians who pushed, and are pushing ever closer union had shown some vision and just a little patience the EU countries would have come together without coercion, naturally.
But no they had to rush it – they had to have their own currency and their own big toys, like satellites and an army… They tried to run before they could crawl.
Ideology will yet be the end of civilization unless we all learn how dangerous it is to put our trust in those that would enslave us.

With Putins Russia locking up thousands every day just for peaceful protesting- parts of Europe are being taken like Crimea and Ukraine, it’s about time the EU got tough with this behaviour. Every generation it seems has to face this sort of bullying- Then there is Erdogans Turkey nearer to home with the largest land army in Europe/ Asia- and hundreds of thousands of Turkish citizens already locked up- it’s time for Europe to get real- the Europeans realize but almost too late that they cannot depend solely on the US and NATO for defence anymore.

It would take many years for the EU 27 to develop an armed force anywhere near the size and skill of America and UK.
Then there is the reluctance of nations like Germany (and others) to ever get involved in any skirmish.
And out of the 27, who is going to pay for it all?

Ah ýes but what the Europeans are really concerned about are the three Baltic Republics, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and then there is Poland I am sure that these countries are feeling vulnerable now with what has been going on in Russia. A combined Eu Army of about 200,000 would do for a start- just as an insurance policy.

You going to be volunteering for the EU army (assuming you won’t get called up) and going off to fight Russia on the battlefields Walter?
In recent years remain fans have been loudly denying the EU’s ambition for an armed force.
Now that is no longer denied, we have fans of the EU like you, thinking 200,000 conscripts will be able to win a war against the Russian armed forces.
One minute we are told the EU is just a trading bloc now we are seeing glimpses of the vision the United States of Europe has for itself.

Walter – – who contributes the force, equal numbers? according to population? Garrisoned where? Call up, or permanent? Who pays salaries, who pays pensions? Who decides military equipment, standards, who makes? Decision making? How to elect Commander in chief, deputy, top dog from each country? Deputies? Policy making in each country, voting on command structure, periods of responsibility for all posts? Conscription rules? Age range, exemptions, service period, males ration to females? Language? – English? (ha ha). Just a few thoughts to be going on with.

Metternich used to say “Asia begins at the Landstrasse”(the road from Vienna to the Hungarian half of the Empire-the Hungarians are not European by origin);Konrad Adenauer was even more extreme-“Asien beginnt hier”,referring to the Elbe crossing(he was never in favour of the East rejoining the West of Germany).

For the Euro to work properly there needs to be a federal state of Europe. However are the dependant nations of the EU (20 of them) prepared to become states, losing their nationality and financial control, and dare they ask the opinions of their people. Secondly are the other 8 financial contributors prepared to pay for it, and will they dare ask their people. The key will be Germany and the Germans. The cost to them could dwarf the cost of absorbing East Germany.

Would it increase the value of the Euro and reduce german competetiveness. All fascinating questions, but the answers I can only guess at.

Someone prescient said in 1970:
”A single currency means a single government, and that single government would be the government whose policies determined every aspect of economic life…”
I wonder whose government that would be, then?

The whole point of a federation is that there is NOT a single government. There is devolution and lots of different local governments. Texas, Arizona, etc, Bavaria, Saxony, etc. The UK is a type of federation too, with four (differently governed) units. I hear people like John Redwood complain about federations, it’s clear he has no clue what they are

Someone is in overall charge.
Someone makes the laws.
Someone makes the final decisions.
If you have a single currency that central bank controls the economy.
In the United States of Europe they will be the ones in overall charge.
Relegating nations into regional parishes with much reduced controls over their self government.
It might suit you but not me.

Henry, yes there are state governments in federations, BUT then there is an overarching federal government – as you say, just like in the UK, which has control over a central bank/the armed forces and the ultimate seat of appeal for justice.

Well said Sir John,
Yes would be good to hear from the Treacherous Fith Columnist.
Perhaps May and her other Globalists would like to live with the Federally, I know there are plenty of us Leavers who would be damn glad to see the back of them, and be able to get back to a Democratic Nation again after decades with out

Saw Cleverly being interviewed today. His and no doubt the stance of Johnson and Cummings is one that rejects a centre-right alliance with their natural allies TBP. If these idiots take this route we will see a Marxist government at the next GE

What is it with the Tories? Do they seriously have a death wish?

Johnson as leader does not in itself guarantee a Tory majority at the next GE simply because far too many do not believe he will deliver Brexit.

The next GE will revolve around the issue of Leave-Remain. All other issues will be subordinate

Tory Eurosceptics really need to get Johnson in a room and give him a proverbial proper slap. He needs to wake up to the reality of what we are facing here

With the Remain forces now “playing dirty” – standing aside to give the “best” Remain candidate a good chance at elections – it is about time this was also done on the leave side too.

If some kind of compromise cannot be reached we will see a Remainer Government and a majority of Remainer MPs in Parliament.

The Conservatives also need to face that however much they spend, they are unlikely to win back much support in the northern areas. Therefore this region should be given to the Brexit Party to contest.

If the Conservatives refuse to get rid of the troublesome Remainer element – then Nigel’s party should quite rightly stand against them. In areas with committed Eurosceptic MPs, like Wokingham, the Brexit Party should stand aside. However this cannot be said regarding the MP of neighbouring Bracknell…..

@Sea Warrior; Yes (I strongly suspect), as the individual States would still exist, just as they do in the USA (and Germany) for example, complete with their own State legislators. Full Federation places a higher level above, not a lower level below.

Accept federalisation or leave sounds like the intention to create a two-tier EU: a federalised Euroland core and an outer tier who are outside the Euro and are classed as Associate Members in the Single Market and Customs Union.

It’s that outer tier that May’s Surrender Treaty aimed to get us in. It will be interesting to see whether the non-Euro countries are willing to surrender their Sovereignty (including losing control of immigration policy) to join the federalised EU …. and also whether some currently Euroland countries refuse to federalise and then how they are dealt with.

I can’t see the EU willingly releasing their captive nations in the current Euroland.

I am no expert on the EU , however I have gathered from various newspapers and other media and my own limited observation of the transition of this organisation , from Coal & Steel to Common Market to European Economic Community to European Union , that the direction of travel is quite obvious and undeniable .

And triggered by the Treaty of Rome and very much evidenced in the Lisbon Treaty and the Five Presidents’ Report and the Franco-German military accord. The cat was out of the bag long before Mr Schulz appeared on the scene.

About John Redwood

John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.